"There will be times when nations—acting individually
or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally
justified." – Barak Obama, "Nobel Peace Address," December 10, 2009.

As far as I can tell, nothing in President Obama's
background or politics prepared us for the remarkably sane address that he
delivered in Oslo. He previously went around the world apologizing for
everything the Americans ever did, only to turn around and say it was
absolutely necessary.

When he was first nominated for this famous prize, many
voices were raised observing that someone who has done so little was chosen for
a peace prize of all things. The selection was written off as Norwegian
ideology at its worst. Now, we find out that Obama himself was rather surprised
at the honor. He even acknowledged that he has really, as yet at least, done
little to deserve it.

Many European leftists were flabbergasted at the speech,
almost as if they had been betrayed in their own endorsements. After all, they
took not a little credit in getting Obama elected in the first place.

Mr. Obama went ahead and accepted the prize anyhow the week
after he had finally decided, with much delay, to send more troops in
Afghanistan. He had announced this decision at a speech at West Point. (The
Washington Post famously showed cadets
sleeping during its delivery.)

Many have noted the increasing boredom with the president's
repetitive rhetoric. Whether Afghanistan is the right place to send more troops
can well be debated. But dispatching our troops and asking for more European
soldiers, this time for those who can legally fight, is hardly the image of
this (up to now) pacifist-sounding president.
The President made the following statements, with which
George Bush would have little or no problem:

1) "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will
not eradicate violent conflicts in our lifetimes." So, no peace in our time.

2) "There will be times when nations—acting
individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary
but morally justified." Hard to disagree with that principle.

3) The United States has a special role in the promotion of
liberty. "The United States of America has helped underwrite global security
for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of
our arms." What more obvious thing is there about the record since World War
II?

4) The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war
between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of
catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a
few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale." Just
who these few "small" men are is not specified. They are probably much greater
in number than the president is wont to acknowledge. But I confess some comfort
in the hint that he finally realizes that they are about, with their
intentions.

These are the principal statements that we heard in Oslo.
They are obvious things some of us have been saying for years. They were said
by Augustine long ago.

But what is worth speculating about is this: If this
president could suddenly make such an about face on the crucial issue of war,
can it happen in the other areas in which he is so disordered? We do not know,
of course, if he will really have the courage to carry the war to the enemy in
any effective sense. Wars tend last much longer than we often are prepared to
expect or that our political support will tolerate.

Might we expect, however, that this most anti-life president
we have ever seen also begins to see that his position on human live, family,
and marriage is as muddled as was his previous position on war?

Being right on war and being right on life are, really,
contrary to the common image, two sides of the same intellectual coin, the
defense of innocent life. Surely, we are not being defended from our enemies,
the "terrorists," so that we can continue to allow our own legally to be killed
in the womb? Even these so-called "terrorists" usually understand that the
enemy they perceive—namely, us—is morally decadent because of its
policies in this area of life.

And the logic of reversals might also cause the president to
wonder whether his policies on health and the economy are not also
wrong-headed. For many, he seems to want to control everything, to put
everything in the hands of the state with himself in command. It is, however, a
policy that saps the polity of its very strength.

Again, could the same man who spoke in Oslo also see that in
order to carry out his war thesis it is much more advisable to reverse his
political agenda? Needless to say, I am not very sanguine here. But the
reversal of the war rhetoric is so astounding that we can at least begin to
wonder.